does the congressional caucus of color need to play in immigration reform? how can they be more effective this time than in in the past? >> they need to play a leading role but i would not limit it to just the caucuses of women, women. frankly, this can happen without bipartisan support. they are good republicans by the way of european descent who understand that fixing the broken immigration system conforms with your values as americans. yes, i think they should all play, you know, a lead role. i think it is important to tell the story of the many faces of the undocumented. they come from canada too. they come from britain. they come from europe. they don't just come from one

country. and the fact is, that would be an important role for those caucuses to play. we need to share the many faces of immigrants, including the undocumented in our nation. >> do you believe that the 1965 immigration reform law that ended northern european preference expanded the diversity that we're experiencing in america? >> i think it played some role. so do birth rates and the like. i will say that even, again, i do think we have to be more realistic on the quotas. we have people with families for -- in some cases, decades and decades and beyond. it would seem to me to take that

into account and reunifighting families. >> what is the likely timeline for congress to start debating an actual immigration bill? what is plan b if the republicans don't go for a full package? >> i'm hoping on plan a. i will say this, we don't expect that this will just be up to the congress. we've seen in the past, particularly, with this do-nothing congress of last session that they respond to public pressure. i think you will see mayors across the country engage on this issue. i'm giving a speesh at the u.s. conference of mayors. we are a baurp organization and

we have passed every year comprehensive immigration reform. sometimes the mayors -- the best people i've seen get up to speak on on the positive impact of immigration are republican mayors. they talk about their towns are decimated by people leaving their small towns. they talk about people who are working hard and playing we the rules, they may come from a different country and speak another language still, they are as part of that town as anyone. you'll see, i think you'll see a lot more in the way of civil rights organization, the u.s. chamber of commerce. i just heard that tom donahue

talked about this issue of comprehensive immigration reform. i have -- about 10% of my city is undocumented. 42% of my city is foreign born. they come from efrl corner of the earth. -- every corner of the earth. their largest population is in l.a. and then about 10 of them that have the largest population of their country outside of their country. so, i'm like the second largest mexican city. i think a number of countries have their largest population -- so i think you'll see mayors and labor, i think you'll see the chamber of commerce in business.

the time is now and people recognize that. they expect this congress to be able to chew and walk at the same time. chew gum and walk at the same time they expect to address this issue, as i said, safe and responsible gun regulation. it is an abomination that we don't have an assault weapons ban. during my speakership we passed one gun a month bill. we passed safe store and trigger locks. we passed a sad night special bill. we've -- we've passed a saturday night special bill. we've come far. when you can buy the same assault weapons in arizona. when we don't have tough enough laws to people who legally buy and sell to those who can't. 40% of all gun sales are between

private owners and no universal background check is required. when you don't have the coordination that you could have if we repealed the t.r. amendments so the feds, the states, and the cities can work together to identify those who shouldn't have guns, criminals, the mentally ill and the like. the list of people who are mentally ill and you're not doing enough to provide mental health services, something is wrong. i do want to add responsible gun regulation, addressing sequestration in a balanced way and not defaulting our credit, i think is something you're going see at the top of u.s. conference of mayors agenda led by our president, mike. >> i want to come back to other issues you raised.

at the mayors conference every year you have passed comprehensive reform. what advise would you give to congress on how you managed to pass something yet they can't? >> with all respect, i was speaker of the assembly and i was proud to be. in that organization, it is like a big debating society. we have to run things. i run a government. a city, if it was a nation it was the 17th largest in the world, it is a metropolitan area. i would hope they realize what i understood ebb when i first got elected in 1994. things like -- values like statesmanship and compromise and getting things done were values that people, you know, cherish.

that doesn't mean we always got along, we had our battles. but i think the mayors are focused on results. the advise -- advice we would give them is you have a 12% approval rate. there is not much farther down you can go. the time is now to come together and tell a story about a congress that went from the do-nothing congress to a congress that is getting things done in the most pornt issues of our time. i think if they do, both parties will benefit and certainly, the nation will benefit. i say that as mon who needs to compromise on all of these issues. both parties need to understand that people are watching and they expect more from folks here

on the beltway. >> when you compromise and you don't walk away with everything you wanted do you still feel like you are successful? >> all the time. you know -- i mean, i used to say they got elected too. the world was not made in my image. we got to fix things and we got to work on things. that means you have to compromise. compromise helps you find a balance. i will tell you something, i'm going to be 60 in two weeks, i guess. no, next week. very soon. i don't know when it is exactly. [laughter] i'm look forward to those years. i'll be 60 and i tell people that the one thing you get over

time is the -- a lot grayer. when you lead a demonstration, the fact is, these problems, while big have solutions. they are not perfect. you build on success. my hope that in on of these issues you will see a lot more in the way of compromise. that's what i called for on the u.s. conference of mayors on my motion, we got behind the simpson bowles. that is what we called for when we said to both democrats and republicans when you're building bridges and hospitals in baghdad and not in kansas city. something is wrong. we have to find the middle ground. we have to caught the size of the defense budget that is bigger than the next 11 or 12

nations combined. there is compromise, there is a middle ground and certainly there is a path forward on all of these issues. >> if the deficit can only be resolved in increasing taxes and cutting expenses. what expenses would you cut? >> i don't believe we should cut across the board. we should cut strategically. s there -- there is fat, no question about it. i would start there. there is no question that this defense budget is bloated. i'm speaking -- i can tell you the mayors of the country want to see less spending on defense and more spending on bridges and roads and highways and schools.

investments that will bear dwiveds down the line. i also said -- i'm a democrat and this does not fly with some democrats but you have to look at some entitlements. you can be for entilettlement reform and not want to turn health care into vouchers. i can tell you mayors have gotten the support of pension reform. there's a number of things we can do that don't decimate the safety net but do, you know, make the kinds of investments. a balanced approach is the only way to deal with deficits at the level and debt at the level that we have in the nation today. it is the only path forward. >> should president obama invoke the 14th amendment and make

congress deal with the debt ceiling? >> i hope it does not come to that but if it has to, it must. you know we can't let extremists put us in default and play chicken with a full faith and credit with the united states of america. that's what they are. when people say let's go into default. when i hear people who are elected to congress say let's go into default. i say this person is from some other planet. this person is not from this planet. the notion that we would do that boggles the mind and the good common sense of the vast majority of americans. >> what is your perspective on america's melting pot being better reflected in small towns? what would urban leaders learn

from small town mayors? >> i mean -- i think we're enriched. i know i am. my kids have grown up. i tell people my kids have been in the homes of iranians, koreans, mexicans, italians, and greeks, muslims, we're enriched when we can experience other cultures and people and other perspectives. i think you're seeing the fastest growing places of immigration are in the small towns across the country. at first, there is tension from that, sometimes a lot. over time, well, this is ok.

this is going to be good. i understand. we benefit. so i see it as a positive sign where the nation is going. l.a. is the city where the world comes together and that is true for america too. there aren't many countries that welcome people from every corner of the earth the way we do and it makes us proud. as i said in my talk a few minutes ago. it makes us feel good about whoer. does that mean we should not enforce our borders? of course not. we can still own force our boders and embrace what makes us strong. >> the new york governor says he may be nearing a deal with leaders in a broad package to changes to the state's gun through would expand new york's ban on assault weapons. what is your reaction?

>> go new york. we've got to do the same. i offered the assault weapons ban in california. over time we have realized there are some loopholes. we're going to have to address them. we need new york and other states to pass an assault weapon ban but we need the country to do it as well. if the state next door to yours doesn't have an assault weapons ban, if they don't have stiffer laws, if you don't have databases and criminaling background checks that are strong enough to be able to identify who cann't -- can't get a gun then one state is good, it is a step forward. it is not what we need, we need a perspective and federal

approach. >> do you think congress is cowarded by the n.r.a.? >> that is pretty clear, isn't it? when you grow up, my friends who are unable to say no to their constituentcies. it is easy to say no to an opponent or to a constituentcy of the other party. it is tougher to say no to a friend, to a supporter. when you get these jobs and you get elected to congress or elected as mayor, the measure of your oath is when you can look a friend in your eye and say i don't agree with you and you're wrong on this issue. i think the n.r.a. is wrong when they say that the answer to a

bad guy is a gun is a good guy with a gun. when they say our teachers should carry guns in our elementary schools. when they say no gun legislation is acceptable to them. that to me is an extreme position. i would hope people both democrat and republican say i'm sorry, i mostly agree with you but you're wrong and vote against them. i mentioned i'm riding into the sun set but not yet. i still have a few months. i would like to be able to continue in public life. i've been majority leaders, a speaker of an assembly, now a mayor, but i would rather be

able to look at the man in the mirror. that at the end is what we all have to be comfort with. if you can't look at the man in the mirror or the woman in the mirror, if you can't look at the reflection of yourself and say i've done good and taken on injustice and what's wrong. then you should not be in this business. go and get another job. >> do you think the second amendment is outdated? >> look, the second amendment is an amendment to our constitution that is enshrined in our constitution. i do think that when the second amendment was adopted we did not have assault weapons. we banned machine guns. why shouldn't be we be able to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines? why shouldn't we have stronger

background checks? why don't we have databases for the mentally ill and criminals who shouldn't be able to buy guns? why has the congress not approved a -- an a.t.f. director in seven or eight years? why? why do they pass the t.r. amendments preventing the feds from keeping background checks for longer than 24 hours? why is that a protection of the second amendment? why do they do that? the fact is, they use the second amendment to defend what is wrong. to defend what doesn't make sense to the vast majority of us and that is the challenge. after the tragedy, you know, i was on cnn today and i could not see the images of the press

conferences of sandy hook in new ubtown, connecticut but i could hear the mothers speak. as i heard them speak it raised goose bumps on your back and on your arms. you know it -- their words were like a knife cutting through butter. we all have a responsibility to those kids. we have a responsibility to victims of massacres across the nation that seems to be more and more common place to do something responsible and safe that does not violate the second amendment but gives us stronger, safer, more responsible gun laws in this nation. >> you said you don't see yourself riding into the sun set right away. are you considering running for governor of california? >> that's a new question.

i haven't gotten that one in a while. just joking. i think i have spoken on that issue enough. i would be honored to continue to serve in public life. for now, i'm looking to finish my term and focus on my job whether it is immigration or responsible gun safety laws, whether it is balancing our own budget. by the way, we talk about compromise and taking on your friends, most people know i had a strong union support when i ran. yet, i have taken on pension reform. i had to layoff and furlough thousands of people. i've cut the size of l.a. civilian general fund workforce

by a third, 15,000 to 10,000. it required a new pension system, retiring at 55 and not at 65. i challenged the notion of seniorty. i know what it is to take on your friends. i want to work as hard as i can until the very end. then, you know, we'll see. we'll see what happens. >> the president has been criticized for the lack of diversity in his recent cabinet nominations. what should he be doing to keep his 2008 cabinet that reflects the makeup of the country? >> i know barack obama, trust him. i know our president, not only

has but will, continue to promote a cabinet that looks like america. balanced gender wise that is reflective of the changing face of america. i have no doubt in my mind that when it is all said and done that will be the case. this was the guy who signed the lilly ledbetter act. a man who stood for equal pay for women but also stood for the notion when you open up the door for one of us, you open up the door for all of us. i expect you will see that reflection of his values in his cabinet. >> has the white house or any administration surrogate approached you considering being the next labor secretary or any other cabinet secretary for that matter? >> like the cabinet -- i mean

like the governor question, a question that has been asked and answered in the past. i will just say, as i said yesterday, i expect to be in washington quite frequently over the next few months. i can't tell you i -- i don't care to comment on any future job. i'm focused on the job i got. i want to finish as strong as i can on the challenges that we face. you know my city is safer than any time since 1952, a 40% drop in violent crime, a 40% drop in homicides. my -- our schools -- we've doubled the number of successful

schools, we reduced from 33% to 10% of failing schools. got for charter schools than any other in the country. my partnership schools, the most improved school district in the state, if we were a school district on the action temperature mic performance index. we started with a goal, we're at 28%, i think only london and toronto are ahead. we're going to keep on working on all the things we started until i'm out of here. then, i'm out of here. i said, we'll see what i do but i know one thing i won't be

married anywhere. >> based on your last statement you talked about all your successes you've had. i want to know if you're asked to serve in the administration would you do it, after you're finished being mayor? >> when i'm asked, i will answer the question. [laughter] >> we are almost out of time but before asking the last question i have a couple of housekeeping matters. i would like to remind you of the next speaker, we have christophered do dodd. second i would like to present our guests with a coffee mug it will look great in l.a. or washington. last question, in the d.c. area we have liberties promised which works with hundreds of immigrants youth especially

those in need. what words of encouragement would you offer these youths in d.c. area to fully engage and appreciate the fundamental val use and traditions in america? >> follow your dreams. reach for the stars. be the change that you want to see in the world. don't lose the sense of the possible. make sure that you keep the cycle of humanity moving forward when you get through a door make sure that someone else gets through that door after you. i think those are some of the things i would say to them.

>> how about a round of [applause] for our speaker today? [applause] thank you for coming. i would like to thank the national press club staff and the broadcast center for organizing the event. you can find more information at press .org. >> the mayor will attend the president's swearing-in ceremony tomorrow. we'll have look at the west side of the capitol as they prepare for the festivities this weekend.

>> you can see senator schumer at the podium where president obama will give his inaugural address on monday. the president will visit arlington national cemetery at the tomb of the unknown. his official swearing-in and we'll bring you live coverage starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

>> located across lafayette square is the church known as the church of the presidents. built in 1816. every president since james madison has attended at least one service there. he gave us a tour of the national landmark. >> this is the original church pues they had to renumber them because they had more of them.

what was president's pue number 28 is now number 54. this is where the president of the united states sits in when he attends a service at st. john's on most regular church occasions. it is marked with a brass plaque to let everyone know it is the president's pue. not always does he sit here. when off special occasion where protocol dictates, a special service of some kind or a funeral or a memorial service of some kind the president will sit in the front on the left of the center section, number 62. when president obama was inaugurated in 2009 he sat in

the front, number 62, not regular because of the nature of the occasion. if you're talking about a regular church service the president will come through the entrance, walk down the aisle, sit here and be part of the as will notice, has embossed upon it, st. john's church. this book of common prayer was used by presidents of forward until it was taken out of service and a new edition was published in 1880's. in 1961, when a service was planned at st. john's to recognize the first attendance, this was found in the archives.

it was discussed with chief leaders. they said it would be a good idea to have every president still living to sign it, and for every president that would follow them to sign it as well. what we have inside this historic book are the signatures of herbert hoover, franklin roosevelt, which was signed by his wife, eleanor roosevelt, harry truman, and dwight eisenhower, lyndon johnson, john kennedy, richard nixon, gerald ford, jimmy carter, ronald reagan, george bush, and so on. more recently, george w. bush and barack obama. the tradition has been maintained. when a new president is elected, st. john's makes an effort to contact them and have them sign this historic book,

which is a very dear item to the church. it is one of those great pieces of history that has been long associated with this church, from 1856 till the present one of the little-known fact about presidential inaugurations is that it has been the custom in modern times to have a church service, and worship service of some kind before the president takes the oath of office. people feel this is a longstanding tradition. it began with franklin roosevelt on march 4, 1933. when he wished to have a worship service take place before he took the oath of office, in the depths of the great depression. he contacted the church and he organized a special service with his former headmaster at school,

who participated in the church with coming up with a special service. the have that service at st. john's that morning, and he felt that was a way to start. he wrote letters later on saying that he felt that he got his administration off to right footing by having the service at st. john's in march of 1933. it planted in the minds of people of this was a good thing to do. when roosevelt died, harry truman became president. when harry truman was inaugurated in 1949 after his election in 1948, he can say john's and had a pre inaugural worship service here. -- he came to st. john's and had a pre-inaugural worship service separat. other presidents have had pre-

inaugural services. not necessarily at st. john's. but the tradition began here. it is one example of the association of st. john with presidents and part of the heritage of this building. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> next, and the violent video games and the president paz bu'n proposal. host: joining us now cheryl olson the co-author of a book "grand theft childhood: the surprising truth about violent video games." thanks for joining us. guest: my pleasure. host: part of the president's

proposal on gun violence was to fund a study looking at video games. what do you think of that proposal? guest: i think it's good depending upon how it's done. a lot of studies are out there but hardly any of it was design as an academic journal and we really need more research. host: specifically where? guest: first of all the concern that it might trigger some kids to hurt people or hurt property. we got a lock at the kids who have tried hurt people or property and see if their video game use is somewhat different. there's no studies on juvenile offenders and their media use. also kids with mental health problems and mental health has been related to school shootings, it's unlikely one kid is going to be influenced by a video game that way but we have seen no ranks between the

violent behavior and video games but parents that don't know how the handle stuff, some children may express mental health issues by substituting with gaming. -- self-medicating with video games. so we should find out more about those kids and their media use. host: what is a commonly-held belief between the connection of violent video games and if people act out? and what did your research show when you studied this? >> the popular view is there must be a link. the vice president at the meeting ran for video games said up front from the research i've seen, i don't see a link between violent video games and real-life violence but the public thinks there's a link and that's really why you are here. i said in my research in 2004 at that time we didn't even know the basic of who is doing what with whom and why? and how long? i said seventh and eighth grade

kids, because that's when they are able to get out away from their parents. so i did a large survey of those kids and focus groups. and the main thing i found was playing a violent video game is normal behavior for 13-year- olds nowadays. especially boys but a lot of girls. the most popular games were grand theft auto. among the girls that was the second most popular game series so when you try to link it to problems but when we analyzed that we looked at things and did find at first a link between playing violent games and a higher risk of bullying and getting into fights but when we looked at things we asked about like aggressive personality questions, stressful events in your life and parent supervision and we found the life events and things were linked to playing the games so

the link between violent game play and bad behavior didn't exist. -- vanished. when you see one of those little clip corrections that show the most violent successful in some -- stuff in some ga games, you look at that and think this looks awful. the other thing that worried parents about it is they are not concerned -- if i'm concerned about a book or a movie i can flip through the book or look at the movie.

@c-spanwj. guest: a number of states tried to regulate some aspects of video game content. schwarzenegger wanted to ban the sale of what was called ultraviolet video games in california. they wanted to put an 18 plus label on certain games. no one said wooden altar violent

game was. -- what an altar violent game was. -- ultra-violent game was. host: as far as the presidents proposal, you said the research had not been done on a policy level. guest: i think there was a suggestion by senator look at it. that's a respectable group. government to support research.

industry research is in a consortium with -- host: you participated in the industry. issues? guest: well, first of all, the industry people were being -- told they were a problem. the vice president said even if there were a link it would be such a tiny amount of the issue compared to the other factors he looked at in that week. but i think the industry people at the meeting, some people were saying, i'm a parent. i think the games i make and develop are good games and i don't think they affect people badly but if there were something i could do, to reduce the risk of harm i would do it. some saying what we do is art. it's an entertainment art form. it's nothing about behavior change.

host: for cheryl olsen our first call, farmington, maine, republican line. caller: hi there. great to be with you guys. listen, media has a huge impact. i watched a thing on c-span example. and this arnold schwarzenegger, he has some of these terrible, violent movies, terminator, blah, blah, blah and one movie has a powerful influence, so kids, young teen girls are copying all kinds of things they see on television. the -- what would you call it -- the unmarried young girls having television. hey, look, come on. america.

so regarding this video game thing, let me tell you, if one media form impacts the children i observe, then for sure video games do the same, and not every kid is the same, and they are young and at a fragile point in their lives, and look, i'm really, really concerned about the media generally and what they are doing to our children. host: we will leigh it there. -- leave it there. cheryl? points brought up here. one thing i have to say in terms of being reassuring is there's been a history of what is called panic of media citizens 1890's we saw with gangster films we look at cautionary flag any that. same with anyonea turtles.

-- ninja turtles. on the other hand parents need some good studies about the things like showing smoking in the movies seems to be related to kids taking up movies and -- smoking, and movies with strong sexual conduct. but it would make sense to give parents other options to would control. violent version of games come out before the more violent. host: our question from twitter.

guest: ever since sock are tease, people have been saying -- socrates, people have been saying that the kids today are ruined and bad influences and i think pretty much every generation comes out ok somehow. you really have to watch your own child and see what the effects are on them. when i did interviews with 13- year-old boys i had some say i won't play this game with the volume up with my little brother swearing. >> what goes to the mind of someone playing these games? what is the connection between what goes on on screen and in the mind? guest: the young people i talked tothe military uses adaptations of video games to teach them things that are a different

context. kids would say i like the happening. what scares me is the news. seeing what would happen if i do this, what happens next. host: that's the fanciful stuff but does the same thing apply when they are seeing games with battlefields? guest: there are studies looking -- are not studies looking at content and how it affects people differently. in my research we use the m- mature rating as sort of a proxy for violent content but it's like saying the bible has violence and so does the "twilight" series, but it's different. host: you're on.

caller: thank you c-span. it seems like the research that you have here, where would be the research on the difference between kids who grow in church? -- a corrupt and church? would that have an effect -- grow up in church? would that have an effect on violence and how they perceive it? that could go a long way to solving our country's problems here. host: the color is mentioning religious influences and the like. guest: to my knowledge, there

are no studies like that. i am worried about other risk factors for violent behavior. kids in were growing up in violent areas, seeing the dead had their mom at home. -- dad hit their mom at home. those kids might be at home with tv and video games, with nothing else to do. there was a study where it would look at what quantity of tv are you watching. and sometimes only get to aggression years later or crime. those kids might well be watching tv because i have nothing else to do. -- they ahve nothing else to do. -- have nothing else to do.

host: 8 twitter comment -- t is absolutely normal development to do rough-and- tumble play. to see who is on top, work up the hierarchy. my impression is a lot of the video games do, and the kids to play video games are more likely to do it in groups. it is for the competition and excitement. for the typical help the kid, video-game play spinning into normal developmenta. host: she joins us on our

democrats line. caller: what is your expertise? who is proving the this is not affecting these kids? i have a grandmother. -- i am a grandmother. luckily, my kids to not permit them. it is just common sense. how do you know how that is affecting them? we lived through a depression and we were fortunate to go to a movie once in awhile. some of the movies we had wonderful movies. and now we resort to, the shooting, and your telling me that this is not affecting these

kids? you do not know this. there is no expertise for this. host: our guest is on because she has done research. maybe explain your backrub and research. -- your background and research. guest: i have a $1.5 million grant to study this area. i can say, i see as violent video games are becoming more available, this violence is going down significantly. becoming stable or declining. i think healthy, normal kids in public school settings -- and worry about the kids were having problems, who do not have parents to guide them.

there is a rating system for a reason on games and movies. kids at the minimum could have nightmares are be confused by content that is not appropriate for their age. i urge parents, i encourage parents to rent games for their kids, sit and watch how the kids play. host: is the rating system effective? guest: yes, with some caveat. the ftc has looked at how well the rating system works as far as checking id's. for video games, they do a better job than for other media. a lot of parents do not know what is in a game. one game might be all about shooting aliens or orks.

a lot of parents told me that they do not mind that. the same rating might have a very bloody, realistic game. most of the nuances you will not get from a rating. host: a color on a republican line. -- caller on our republican line. my boy is 27. my daughter is 23. i was not really into video games. my mother started as up. when guns came into the game, the head to have them. -- they head thad to have them.

i really cannot afford them, but the pressure was on. it would throw run this fits in the store. -- they would throw horrendous fix in the store. i had not seen that before. -- fits in the store. i had not seen that before. now my son has gone from a very social person to a person who spends six hours a day in his bedroom playing violent video games. he is not depressed. he is happy about killing the enemy. he wants to annihilate all. guest: an interesting point. some of this is about what normal child development is. parents say, he is up in his

room, playing this and he cannot turn himself away. to some extent, that is normal behavior. a typical 11 or 12 year-old experience in an enjoyable activity has a difficult time living. in my research, it was unusual for a child to play alone all the time. if you see a child who is isolated himself, getting away from activities used to enjoy, , it ising a balance another thing. i do not know if this is you need to video games or something and i want to talk to an expert about -- unique to video games are something you might want to talk to an expert about. there is no link between the violent video games and real- life violence. aggression is a concept we should talk about.

that is the biggest source of disagreement among researchers. one of the things i found in my research, when we factor in an aggressive personality, the link between video games and bullying or fighting went away. it may be that aggressive kids are more drawn to these games, or kids were trying to get out stress, their parents are divorcing. there were some things in my research to suggest that might be the case. i cannot say anything causes anything. you need multiple surveys and a long-term study to talk about cause and effect. a lot of studies have been done on this topic, but a lot of them look at that -- they're

using a sample of a couple hundred children and north dakota and saying that it applies to everyone. it is what they call methodological problems to a lot of these. the ones that have done the most steady have been -- attention have been a lab studies. host: on our independent line. caller: good morning, cheryl. thank you for what you're doing. do you think other factors could be looked at as well in this kind of research, such as societal factors and access to guns and other things? the video game violence and

video games is across the entire world. japan are abusing their video games more than any other part of the world. the violent behavior of children in japan is not equal to the violent behavior of children in america. can you factor this in? guest: that is an excellent point. most of the video games that are popular nowadays are international business. it is true with the caller is saying, some countries have low rates of violence and others have high rates. if someone in a country like japan or great britain is revved up by a violent game,

hypothetically, they cannot go out and get a weapon and do something about it. if you look what people actually do in some cases with more violent media like japan, there is less violence in that country. i think vice-president biden was right when he brought up in the that you have to address that. the fact we are going to show up and meet with the vice president is saying that we agree with that fleming, that video games are linked to violence -- framing, that video games are linked to violence. i hope this will be an opportunity to fill up those steps in research, a high risk kids who maybe grea be at greatr

risk for harm to themselves. host: terrance letting the exports be the babysitter is the problem -- parents letting the x-box be the babysitter is the real problem, a tweet. guest: the loss of comments about, this is -- there are a lot of comments, this is about parenting. parents need to parent. that is a really important message here. parents need to be aware of the parental controls, using the ratings. at the least, we know the media in the bedroom interferes with sleep. sleep affects everything from

school grades to obesity. to put in a place where you can see what they're doing. -- put it in a place where yo ucan seu can see what they're doing. guest: all the technology goes into a basket before bed -- parents can set a bad example by having tv and phones in the bedroom. caller: six years ago or so, i went to a friend's house. he had two little girls. there seven and nine. complete this video game with me. but it was grand theft auto. my instinct was to avoid the pedestrians. i said,hit one, soared.

they said, -- sorry. they said, don't be sorry. they wanted me to kill them. they seem normal now. you would think there has got to be something there. it is and printed on them to kill a pedestrian. mprinted in them to kill the pedestrian. guest: the girls do not in any way see these as real people. if you play a game like grand theft auto -- a child should not be having access to a game like grand theft auto. a 10-year-old boy was showing me how he played grand theft auto. a child that age is not even going to be aware of other

contests, how to find it. -- content, how to find it. people worry about the sensitization a lot of the time to think of a child is shooting at people, running them over, to not care if someone is hurt -- child psychologists at harvard will become a if you see a child to is calling a lot of violent games, but it hurt a soccer and upset-- say, if you see a child who is playing a lot of video games, if they get hurt in soccer, they will get upset. they're desensitized in the fantasy world, not in the real world. i saw a boy playing

games, making friends. it was to deal with stress. he is not a recent college graduate. -- is now a recent college graduate. host: your research was spurred by an action of congress. guest: the congressman from virginia has seen publicity about grand theft auto and was concerned about, could this be degrading our society or encouraging violence? there was not much to go on. he made funds available to study this. host: what you saw and grand theft auto has been surpassed by what you see in the modern-day videogames? guest: the question of content and graphic as of it, video games can be made all kinds of

level of cartoony-ness or realism. the emotional value, the characters, does the public real -- one reason the germans do not like to have -- the one to reduce the blood of the one to turn green is because of history they have -- the want to reduce the blood or the want to turn green is because of history they have. on a republican line. jim from texas. caller: i am 62. when we were kids, we would get in the backyard and should ar, t our friends three or four times. cps anops and robbers.

we're missing the point. we have situations where people have mental problems. that is what we're not addressing and going after. but frankly, i would be disturbed if it 10-year-old was sitting and practicing the violin for six or eight hours a day. paris something going on there that is not right. that is not a natural thing -- there is something going on there that is not right. that is not a natural thing to do in any endeavor. on that youtube, the guy changed the clip in the gun about 10 times in about 30 seconds. all these things come back to the same problem. anyone who goes out and does mass murdering like that, what we're trying to stop with all these things, you get back to

the same problem. there is a mental problem there. that is where we need to be looking down the most, how do we make sure that folks who need help get help. guest: i agree with that. a lot of kids will say they learned things from video games. persistence, problem-solving. a lot of the games kids play are not violent of all. they're practicing dance moves. one of the things i said in my book, a child who plays the violin or practices basketball for three hours a day, we think they're dedicated. if they play video games, problem-solving and working on other things that interest them, we say it is a horrible waste of time. you do want to look at what is going on there with ballots.

host: -- balance. host: on our line for independents. she is the co-author of "grand theft childhood." caller: i was curious what the mentality is -- have there been studies done with parents being more involved in their children postal life? -- children's life. i had these games growing up. my friend was a violent person. we live in a society where things are moving towards that type of stuff. more violence, desensitization. people are not getting involved in the children's lives and knowing what is going on with their children. being a word, latchkey kids.

has been any studies about how that is affecting children? work, latchkeykt kids. has there been any studies about how that is affecting children? guest: one of the things the kids said to me and focus groups, is i wish that my parents would play video games with me. most of them said the parents did not. now that we of is your game control, it is easier to learn this stuff, it is less embarrassing. i encourage parents to do that whenever possible. i hear parents say, these video games are awful, how can you please something like that -- think about what message that sends. things you like are stupid. it would be better to say, i do not see the appeal of game,

teach me a little bit about how to play. that is a great witness said a dialogue, see how it is affecting him big -- a great way to start a dialogue, see how it is affecting him. practice range, a story followup, apple changed its at store rating to 12 plus. some critics feel the game should be banned from the ad store altogether. it goes back to the idea of the rating system. system isle's rating a whole separate thing. when a person looks and a coffin ship target, implying it the person, -- looks of a coffin- shaped target, implying a dead person, i think that is what

upset people. knowing about product placement of cigarettes, and research showing that kids pick up smoking from that, it is easier to pick up a cigarette than an uzi, but i do not like the idea of having real than prince demoted and linked to the website -- dun brands promoted and linked to the web site. -- gun brands promoted and linked to the web site. when the reason that people like to play these games, people tell me it is the unreality gre. caller: no one is bringing up the point that what children experience in their own homes,

today -- on tv and everywhere you go, people show so much more hate to everyone. it seems that that is your basis for a child to grow up, when they see hate and people being made fun of. children are made fun of. for whatever reason, they're different. don't you think that is the seed that grows within the child? maybe it is a mental problem. it started from that hit all the time. -- hate all the time. host: a tweet, but what is appropriate for one child age 12 can be very inappropriate for another child at age 12. know your child. guest: research has shown that children do end up with the values of their parents. whatever the trend is.

i have a sister in minnesota who is more conservative. i visited her. her son was playing grand theft auto with his friends. she said, he is a good kid and his friends are good kids. i think this is what they do for fun. the think after spending a million and have tax dollars, my sister is correct. if you have a good kid with good friendships and current supervision, the violent games are like comic books from the 1950's that were subversive, like "mad" magazine. host: the subtitle of your book implies there are concerns. guest: what parents can do is

parent. i recommend that parents go to the entertainment ratings board site. there is not a summary of the plot and what they're credited with it did. -- now a summary of the plot and why they are rated up with corporate he went to look at games, -- rated. you want to look at games and see if they fit your values. host: troy is our last call. on the republican line. guest: most kids who play these games now, they play online. they are not isolated back in the 99 eighties and 1990's. -- like back in the 1980's and 19690's.

they talk on microphones to which other. -- to each other from house to house. guest: again like grand theft auto, they're not getting children in the game. that would make the fantasy yucky. the caller makes good points about that. i hope i do not come across as being too pro-game. the rest been so much anti-game out there. -- there is been so much anti- game out there. a survey in 2004, i ask them what they would do if they could not play video games.

some of them would say, other than girls and games, i do not know what we would talk about. host: who would you talk to specifically, what elements would you look at, and how could lead to oppose the discussion on capitol hill -- how would that lead to a discussion on capitol hill? guest: i would like to study juvenile offenders. we need to find a population of juvenile offenders and to some surveys with them to find out about their media intake, how they perceive it. there is some anecdotal evidence from research where they say juvenile offenders use less media. i have a survey and other methodology of would be happy to share and replicate. we need to do more focus groups

and discussion of what parents are worried about. parents are worried and may be alienating their kids. they do not know what is harmful and what is not with different ages and different types of media, including the evening news. host: the book is "grand theft childhood: the surprising truth about violent video games." thank you for your time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> later, and the defense from today's national day of service.

-- allow the defense from today pose a national day of service. -- a look at the events from today's natioanonal day of service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is john lott. welcome. what did you think about the president's call for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban? guest: i was not surprised. i was disappointed by the tone of what he said. people disagree on a lot of things. he said it is because they are trying to scare people or because people wanted to leave -- make money off of the death of kids. i thought that was a little strong, over the top with the language. we all care about the same thing, what we can do to save lives. with regards to the assault weapons ban, all of the things, he does not talk about how we have tried these things before, whether they have worked or not, why they did not work, what

he may be doing differently. we had the assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. there has been a lot of work by academics looking at that. people are not finding a benefit from that. we can talk about why that is the case. if you ban guns based on how the look and not how they function, it is obvious why it will not make a difference. we have machine guns, semi- automatic, and then manual loaded guns. the difference is with machine guns, one pull of the trigger and lots of bullets come out. semi-automatic, one bullet comes out and then if the lows. -- it re-loads. manual load, if you have to pull back the bolt, put another bullet in, and close it. semi-automatic weapons are no

different from other semi- automatic weapons. semi-automatic hunting rifles are functionally identical to the assault weapons. the only difference is how they look on the outside. it is not a military weapon. it is not the type of weapon any self-respecting military would use. if you want to ban semi- automatic weapons, do not ban them based on their looks. argue for banning all of them. i do not think the president wants to make that case for obvious reasons. the vast majority of guns owned in the united states are semi- automatic. there are reasons why you have them. for safety, for example. if we were to eliminate a semiautomatic rifles and require people have to use old action rifles, that is limited for self-defense. if you have two criminals

attacking you or miss on your first shot, you may not have the luxury or time to manually load the weapon. you may hope that you could quickly fire a second shot. banning guns on how they look, i do not think that is the matter. -- should matter. we have to consider the fact that banning certain types of guns can be counterproductive. you may be making it so people will have a more difficult time defending themselves. host: we want to let our viewers know here is a chance to give us a call. we have the line for democrats, republicans, and for those who find themselves independent. you can e-mail us or send us a tweet.

you had an op-ed yesterday about the assault weapons and crime. this goes back to what was done in 2004. what was the end result? guest: there have been a lot of studies. the point of the opposite is dianne feinstein has statements about the benefits from the van -- ban we had before. she cites two academic studies. unfortunately, i do not think she read the studies. part of what they did was quote from them. neither one of them supported her case. it is clear the authors were saying they could not find any benefit from the assault weapons ban. host: the quote in your piece is from two researchers who say we cannot clearly credit the

man -- ban with the recent drop in gun violence. how did they come to that? guest: you have 50 states. we look at them overtime the assault weapons ban changed the law in states differently. some states already have the assault weapons ban. for the states where it made a difference, changed the policy, how did their crime rates change before and after the federal law relative to the states where it did not change what was already there? they found identical changes in crime. there have been other studies that have the reverse effect slightly. but no one has found a benefit from that in terms of publications. the two authors were originally hired under the clinton administration to evaluate the study. they did not find any benefit there either. host: yet the ban is still

touted as a way to reduce gun violence. guest: when it was going to sunset in 2004, people were predicting double-digit increases in murder and robbery rates if it was allowed to sunset. those crime rates never went up after the ban. they have been going down consistently. murder rates are 20% lower than immediately before the ban sunset. even more sophisticated studies do not find benefits. host: our guest is with us until 9:15. michael from alabama, you are on with john lott. caller: this is my first time to ask this question of c-span. i especially want to ask him if he is a conservative.

i wish i had been able to ask a question of that wonderful sociologists about -- host: our guest is here now. what do you want to ask? caller: i have obsessive- compulsive disorder. i used to have severe depression. i was born with asperger's syndrome. that is why i talk a little funny. why has nobody and the nra, i can understand why they have been silent about this, have background checks for mental illness or the family members of a person trying to get a gun permit? i would recommend the personality test for young

adults try to get a gun permit or grandparents if they have small children in the home and have lots of forgetfulness, the way i do, to take the bullets out and lock the gun cabinets. host: what is the question? caller: about background checks for mental illness, doing what we can to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, except possibly return and -- returning veterans with post- traumatic stress disorder. on that, i will agree with conservatives. host: we will leave it there. guest: we have rules right now with regard to a mental illness. people object to having their names put on lists. there are privacy issues. a lot of people in the mental illness community object to having these type of lists. the aclu and others have sued

when people have tried to put these things together. i think everybody wants to try to keep guns away from criminals and people who might be harmed to themselves or others. is this the only approach you want to take? maybe you want to think about locking somebody up if they are really a threat to themselves or others. part of the thing going on is we talk about the possible benefits. we do not realize there are costs to have in the background rules. the president on wednesday mentioned there were 1.5 million people who have been prevented from purchasing guns. he should have said there were 1.5 million initial denials. there is a false positive rate of about 99.8%. that is a lot of people who wanted to get a gun and were

denied for months or longer. the problem you have is the vast majority of people may have a simple inconvenience. that is something we can live with. there is a small group of people that want to get hold of it done -- to get a hold of a gun quickly for self-defense. denying them being able to do that could make the difference in terms of whether they are able to themselves. -- defend themselves. a few days' delay has increases in rape and aggravated assault rates against women. we may be only talking about a 3% net effect if you take into account the cooling-off effects. the question is, what is the net effect in terms of the lives of individuals? that will be an important effect. i wish there was a discussion

about the cost and how we could fix the current system so as to not make it so individuals who need difference quickly are -- defense quickly are going to be denied when they are in critical situations. host: jim from dayton, ohio, if you are on with our guest, john lott. caller: america has dropped the ball on mental illness in our country. our schools need to be like other countries. they need to have kids identified by the time they are 12 or 13 if they are antisocial or have some type of problems. schools have psychiatric treatment available to the kids. gun-control is not going to work. criminals will not go for background checks. america, wake up.

if you want a gun, sell drugs and you can buy it. i would like to have an ar-15. unfortunately, i have a mortgage and car payment and other responsibilities. guest: as an aside, i am not a mental health expert. i do crime. i will concentrate on the part of the questions. the caller raises the interesting issue about stopping criminals from getting guns. we talked about that previously. the issue that is often on interest is how few criminals try to get done some background checks. they get them in other ways. if you look at the data for 2010, there are about 76,000 initial denials, almost always because of some type of criminal background. you have like 94% of those cases

dropped within a few weeks. you have another 5% better drop within the next few months as it goes through the field offices and the department of justice. they find those are false positives. take for example the no-fly list we have. the late senator ted kennedy was stopped from klein for five-- f rom flying five times because his name was on there. eventually he ended up flying. we would not kill the five times he was stopped as stopping a terrorist from going in doing that. we have somebody else who was on the list we did not want to fly who had a similar name to the senator. when he would fly, he would often be flagged. it is the same type of problem you have with background checks for guns. out of the original 76,000

cases, only 62 were deemed to have sufficient evidence to be referred to prosecutors. they did not prosecute all of those. if prosecuted less than 40. of those, only 13 resulted in convictions. even those 13 are not the type of hardened criminals. there was the case of a man who 45 years earlier got into a fistfight with his brother and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor domestic violence. he did not know, he says, it was recovered 1/5. -- covered offense. prosecutors said he should have known. in that case, they caught him for perjury. he went to jail for three years. he was buying a gun for his wife because he had gotten threats from work. even the small number that end up getting caught in those cases are people who many times just

made a mistake, or it looks like they made a mistake. they are not hardened criminals. we want to try to stop criminals from getting a dose. -- from getting guns. it seems like background checks have not been particularly effective. they do not find benefits in terms of reducing crime rates. host: rachel is on our independent line from texas. caller: a neighbor pulled a gun on me and my sisters. they shot four of us. they say you have the right to bear arms. in my car, i had a hunting knife over so many inches long. they could arrest me and take me to jail. in chicago, you can buy guns. but then they turn around and do a background check on you. you can get the guns and then sell them.

if they wind up in a gang member's hands, you can say they were stolen. there is not a law saying if your guns are still going to have to report them. -- are stolen you have to report them. that is the problem we're having today. guest: one of the points the president made in his presentation on wednesday was the claim that 40% of gun sales did not go through a background check, presumably what the caller is referring to, be able to sell guns on the side. what he did not go through is to explain where the number came from. it came from a survey of about 251 people done 20 years ago. a lot of those purchases were conducted prior to the brady act that went into effect in 1994. almost all of that 40% were

inheritances within families or gifts within families. i know he used the word "sales," but i think he meant to use the word "transfers." it would not have had the same impact if he had said inheritances or gifts. people like the caller get the impression that these types of sales are more common than they are. when you take those out of the equation, inheritances and family gifts, you are dealing with a number that will be in the single digits. there are some other biases with the survey. buying a gun now is nowhere near what it was like two decades ago before you even have the brady background checks. host: is it more complicated? guest: you have to go through a background check.

before, you just had to fill out a form that said, do you have a criminal background? have you been dishonorably discharged from the military? do you have a history of mental illness? have you been involuntarily committed? you signed the forms on the threat of perjury. now we have a computerized search to see if someone is actually filling those out. the big change has occurred in the number of federally licensed gun dealers. when president clinton became president, there were 284,000 federally licensed gun dealers. right now it is 118,000. the huge drop has been the elimination of kitchen table dealers who operate out of their home and sell 40 a month. the main reason for those dealers is that it cost $10 to

get a license. you could get guns at wholesale prices. the clinton administration decided they wanted to get rid of that. we only wanted to have people in stores selling guns with licenses. the survey at the time was not careful in terms of making sure the people they were asking understood whether somebody was actually a dealer or not. there is evidence that indicates people answering the survey thought you were a dealer if you were dealing out of the store. they may not have been someone selling from their home was a dealer or not. if you take that into account, you are probably talking about a percent of transfers not involving background checks or family members probably in the low single digits. host: could more be done if the atf had a full-time director and if there were a way to speed up

the background checks? guest: that is a budget issue. i have not heard complaints about the acting director not be incompetent. the big thing with the director -- it is kind of funny. the president appointed someone in 2010 when the democrats have 59 seats in the senate. the democrats were the ones who objected to the man he appointed. he had made statements in support of certain types of guns. he was too far to the left from the democrats. they could have confirmed anybody they wanted to, you would think. the president said -- for two years he has not nominated anybody else until this last week. he said he was going to nominate the acting director to takeover.

he could have done that over the last two years or more. he decided not to do that. host: washington, d.c., is next on the democrats' line. caller: let's talk about mr. lott's research. there has been a tremendous amount of research on his research. i will cite three examples. your listeners can google the words "john lott" and "discredited" to read it. they examined his research on concealed carry. mr. lott stated there were sharp declines in crime. they found his paper was riddled -- this was the second time it happened -- with coding errors. that means the data was coded incorrectly. when they corrected those errors, the entire effect for

concealed carry reversed in the opposite direction of his claim. you took your name off of the final paper in the stanford law review when they put that in there. i would also like to cite what they said about this. guest: there has been a lot of research done on this. there are 30 some papers. 2/3 of the academic peer- reviewed papers have found benefits from the right to carry laws, some larger than what i found. about 1/3 say there's no effect on crime rates. there is no one who has published a paper that found murder rates or robbery rates have gone up as a result. the paper he is talking about in the law review -- there was another paper.

i was involved initially help in that. it was their paper. there were coding errors in their papers. the stanford law review reprimanded them in a separate note saying they were wrong about the types of things he was just saying. you can look at a later issue. they have a note from the editor that corrected the statement you were making. you can look that up yourself. the main thing is there are lots of debates on these types of things. you will get most academic debates -- you will have some people say something good or bad happened. the debate over right to carry has been fairly unique in that some people say there is a large benefit. there is a fewer number of people that say there's no effect. you can look at judge posner, probably the most famous appeals court judge in the country.

he just ruled in whether illinois could ban people be able to carry concealed handguns. it came out in december. if you read his decision, he goes through all the critics of mine in his decision. he says illinois had to argue there is a bad effect from people carrying concealed handguns. he says when you look across the literature, the worst they say is there is no effect. he said that was not enough for the state of illinois to be able to stop people be able to carry concealed handguns. i think that summarizes it. if you want to believe the worst objections and research done, the worst they can say is there is no benefit. the best is that there are large benefits.

you cannot find anybody who has found a bad effect from letting people defend themselves. there are two general questions you can ask. right now, there are over 8.5 million americans with permits to carry concealed handguns. the simple question to answer is how they behave? are they law-abiding? did they cause harm themselves? you can look at the records to see if permits have been revoked. permit holders tend to be very law-abiding. that is one question. what effect does it have on crime rates? that is a question that the caller is raising. that is the bounds of the debate, whether or not -- i have a summary in my book of the

literature -- if you look across whole literature, that is the range you find. host: looking at gun buyback programs that states and localities offer -- what is their effectiveness? guest: the national academy of sciences put out a report in 2004 and they could not find any benefit. the entire panel agreed on that. you look at what type of guns get turned then and 99% of the guns are not operational. they are just something that people have around, maybe rusting for decades or something like that so they go and get rid of them. host: georgia, republican -- caller: i have three quick points -- i like the contrast between the differences of semi automatic guns.

i would like for someone to define what is an assault rifle. they are all mostly semi automatic so why not call them all assault -- all assault weapons so one abandoned. to me, the background check is not for the mental attitude of an individual. guest: i agree with what the caller was saying. if you want to go and ban guns, it should be based on the characteristic of the guns in terms of how they operate. how did they fire bullets, the rapidity with which they fire, the damage with which they used and not how much the gun looks. you should not ban guns based on what it looks like. that is one reason why i don't think anybody -- if i have

another functionally identical gun -- one thing people often talk about is the magazines. any semiautomatic rifle can take magazines of any size. it is nothing unique about the assault weapon, the so-called assault weapons, other than the way they look on the outside. host: one viewer asks about your opinion of the australian gun laws. in "the new york times" this week, john howard, the prime minister there, talked about the proposals that he had. that there was a buyback program a part of that.

today there is a wide consent since that our 90 -- 1996 reforms that only reduce gun related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate. guest: those are important points -- those changes were done while he was prime minister. if you look at murder rates in australia, they started falling from the late 1960's to the mid- 1990's and they were pretty flat after that. the way you can get a drop after the change in law in 1996 is if you compare the average for the period before when it is dropping to the period when it is relatively flat after worse. you'll get an average of pierre and when it is flat, you'll get an average down here so it looks like it is dropping grid you need to look at the year by year changes, the drops that already occurred by the time you had the

96 change that was there. suicides have fallen but non-gun suicides have also fallen in australia and they have fallen virtually identically. they have not ban all semi- automatic guns. they banned a lot of them but the gun ownership rate in australia took a hit when they did the buyback, the reduced from 3 million-2 million guns but since then, it has been a study that came out last week that indicated that gun ownership rates in australia are back to where they were when the buyback occurred. you would imagine that if the gun laws have an impact, you would have seen a big drop right away when they had to buy back and the suicide rate with fire arms should have kept going up. in fact, it has fallen continually over that period of time. it is not really clear what you

can draw from that. with regard to these mass shootings that are there, you can compare it to new zealand new zealand, prior to 96, actually had a slightly higher mass shooting rate, either deaths or rates of attacks than australia did and it has had no public shootings since 1996 also. they have no changes in gun laws. semiautomatics are allowed in new zealand with no restrictions and gun ownership rates are fairly high. we have lots of countries in the world. europe has many stricter gun control laws. yet they still have lots of multiple becton public shootings. it